PDA

View Full Version : Eddie doesn't report?



GrangerRanger
10-12-2008, 05:40 PM
http://my.nba.com/thread.jspa?threadID=5700022576

__________________________________


No word from Jones on his intentions

Eddie Jones did not join the Pacers for Sunday's practice in Conseco Fieldhouse and is not expected to meet them Monday in Memphis. It's uncertain if the 36-year-old veteran acquired Friday from Dallas in the Shawne Williams will report at all.

"He was in a situation that he wasn't in Dallas' camp," said O'Brien. "We would like him in our camp and we would like him on our team unless he decides he doesn't want to play. And then that's something that Larry (Bird) and his agent are going to have to talk about. We anticipate seeing where he is and getting him up here."

Does O'Brien believe Jones could help the Pacers?

"Until I'm told differently, that's my viewpoint," said the coach. "My anticipation is that we just made a trade and we got a player in the trade and we expect any player we trade for to report. If they don't, then there's an issue. But I'm expecting him to be here and to play. That's my expectation. We expect him in here unless he decides to not be in here an then that's out of my hands and it comes down to his agent and our management."

When the Mavericks were hammering out the details of the trade that would bring Jason Kidd from the Nets last February, Jones' name was mentioned in the deal. At that time, Jones said he would refuse to report to New Jersey if dealt. "There is no next stop for me," he told The Dallas Morning News. "I'll go home."

Jones has been bothered by a hamstring injury through training camp and the early stages of the preseason.

The Pacers also received two second-round picks from Dallas, the 2009 selection and either the 2010 or 2011 choices; the option belongs to the Mavs.


________________________

What happens if he doesn't?

Pacemaker
10-12-2008, 05:53 PM
I wonder what's gonna happen.

Hicks
10-12-2008, 05:53 PM
Good question.

Anthem
10-12-2008, 05:58 PM
Assuming he doesn't want to be a Pacer, here's my thoughts.

Best case: we waive him and somebody claims him off waivers.

Next-best case: we buy him out and save a bit.

Worst case: we cut him and pay him his full salary, using up the money we got from Mark Cuban.

None of those possibilities upset me.

bambam
10-12-2008, 05:59 PM
If he does not report, then we are required to pay him...right? if so, then he shouldnt count against our cap?

speakout4
10-12-2008, 06:05 PM
If he does not report, then we are required to pay him...right? if so, then he shouldnt count against our cap?
Why should we pay him if he doesn't report or retires? Let the Simons keep their money.

bambam
10-12-2008, 06:09 PM
Why should we pay him if he doesn't report or retires? Let the Simons keep their money.


Sorry bud, meant to say "not" required

Pacers
10-12-2008, 06:16 PM
Guaranteed means guaranteed. The only way we don't pay him is if he is waived and claimed, I believe.

imawhat
10-12-2008, 06:19 PM
I wonder what happens now.

Saying "he has until 5 p.m. on Sunday to report" makes it sound like there may be consequences, but what could they possibly be?

A trade isn't complete until physicals are passed, right?

Hicks
10-12-2008, 06:21 PM
I think it's a serious problem in the NBA if a player can opt to not even show up after he's traded yet the team expecting him is left writing him checks while he's hurting them. Surely there's SOMETHING positive for that team in this scenario.

speakout4
10-12-2008, 06:21 PM
Does guaranteed mean that a player who signs a 5 year $50M can decide he doesn't want to play or report to a new team and just go home? I don't know that any contract works that way.

Pacers
10-12-2008, 06:34 PM
Guaranteed contracts in the NBA work that way.

There may be some fines available, but nothing like he's making, and nothing that would come off the cap.

kester99
10-12-2008, 06:38 PM
From the Collective Bargaining Agreement -- Wouldn't the reasonable discipline cited in the last line be forfeiture of any salary coming to the guy?

I know I'm in over my head here.


ARTICLE VI: PLAYER CONDUCT

INDEX
Section 1. General
Section 2. Practices
Section 3. Promotional Appearances
Section 4. Mandatory Programs
Section 5. Media Training and Business of Basketball
Section 6. Charitable Contributions
Section 7. Unlawful Violence
Section 8. Counseling for Violent Misconduct
Section 9. Firearms
Section 10. One Penalty
Section 11. League Investigations
Section 12. On-Court Conduct
Section 13. Motor Vehicles

Section 1. General
In addition to any other rights a Team or the NBA may have by contract (including but not limited to the rights set forth in paragraphs 9 and 16 of the Uniform Player Contract) or by law, when a player fails or refuses, without proper and reasonable cause or excuse, to render the services required by a Player Contract or this Agreement, or when a player is, for proper cause, suspended by his Team or the NBA in accordance with the terms of such Contract or this Agreement, the Current Base Compensation payable to the player for the year of the Contract during which such refusal or failure and/or suspension occurs may be reduced (or, in the case of a suspension, shall be reduced) by 1/110th of the player’s Base Compensation for each missed Exhibition, Regular Season or Playoff game.

Top

Section 2. Practices.
(a) When a player, without proper and reasonable excuse, fails to attend a practice session scheduled by his Team, he shall be subject to the following discipline: (i) for the first missed practice during a Season -- $2,500; (ii) for the second missed practice during such Season -- $5,000; (iii) for the third missed practice during such Season -- $7,500; and (iv) for the fourth (or any additional) missed practice during such Season -- such discipline as is reasonable under the circumstances.

(b) Notwithstanding Section 2(a) above, when a player, without proper and reasonable excuse, refuses or intentionally fails to attend any practice session scheduled by his Team, he shall be subject to such discipline as is reasonable under the circumstances.

aceace
10-12-2008, 06:38 PM
If he won't report he won't get paid. A contract is for services rendered, no service = breach of contract. Best case scenario for us is to buy him out for 500,000 or so. This would make the trade complete and give him his freedom.

speakout4
10-12-2008, 06:46 PM
If he won't report he won't get paid. A contract is for services rendered, no service = breach of contract. Best case scenario for us is to buy him out for 500,000 or so. This would make the trade complete and give him his freedom.
The culture in the nba does suggest that players expect to be paid without services rendered. Reminds me of the way some big CEOs think.

JayRedd
10-12-2008, 06:52 PM
He's probably gonna retire.

count55
10-12-2008, 06:56 PM
We'll waive him. We'll pay him. Just as initially reported.

Pacers
10-12-2008, 07:00 PM
I don't know why you guys would be surprised that Jones will get paid. If an NFL player holds out from training camp, he still gets paid. And that's not even all guaranteed.

Pacers
10-12-2008, 07:00 PM
Hell, come to think about it, Tinsley is getting paid to sit on his butt. There's no difference.

CableKC
10-12-2008, 07:03 PM
Cut him, waive him, buy him a bus ticket back to Dallas.....whatever....I don't really care....I want to choose the best option that allows us to save the most $$$.

Los Angeles
10-12-2008, 07:46 PM
I'm glad he didn't show up and hope he doesn't show up. This team has been through major surgery, through the IC ward and on the way to recovery. Eddie 's nothing more than a bandaid. He is not a part of our future and as such should not be a part of our present either.

And this is the first and last time I mention it, but that's the way I feel about Croshere, too.

Bball
10-12-2008, 07:50 PM
Hell, come to think about it, Tinsley is getting paid to sit on his butt. There's no difference.

Tinsley reports and pouts. Jones isn't even reporting. That's the difference. If a player refuses to honor his contract that is breach of contract. I can't imagine any contract being worth the paper it's written on if the player can ignore it BUT still get paid.

If an NFL player holds out for a new contract and doesn't report to training camp, IF the team actually cares about keeping him, then paying him for missed time might be part of the carrot they offer to get him to end the hold out and/or accept their counter offer. Again, you're talking a situation where both parties are ultimately wanting to be in an agreement.

Tinsley might not want to be a Pacer, but not badly enough to forfeit his contract or blatantly breach it.

-Bball

D-BONE
10-12-2008, 07:54 PM
Only argument for him at this point in his career is the veteran presence one. Personally, I don't want him anyway. Good player in his day but he's over the hill! And since he doesn't want to be here, do whatever to move him along. Ditto for Croshere. My read on him is the same minus the doesn't want to be here part.

speakout4
10-12-2008, 08:07 PM
Hell, come to think about it, Tinsley is getting paid to sit on his butt. There's no difference.
He wouldn't be paid if TPTB told him to come to camp. There is a big difference. What Tinsley has done in the past is to claim an injury not that he didn't want to play. If Jones doesn't come to camp and the pacers want to make a stand he can be suspended for every game he doesn't participate in. Legally they can do it. See BBall.

Pacerized
10-12-2008, 10:15 PM
I don't believe that a player has the right under their contract to simply not report to work and still get paid for it. I'm no contract expert but I would think the team would have the right to simply void the players contract and pay him nothing after a reasonable amount of time. I wouldn't even think the union would side with a player if he expected to be paid.

count55
10-12-2008, 11:01 PM
It's virtually impossible to void a contract.

It's basically his money. If we make him report, then he'll report, then retire, then we'll pay him the money.

This ship's sailed. It just makes the decision making process easier.

My only concern would be if the Pacers voided the trade over this.

Pacerized
10-12-2008, 11:14 PM
It's virtually impossible to void a contract.

It's basically his money. If we make him report, then he'll report, then retire, then we'll pay him the money.

This ship's sailed. It just makes the decision making process easier.

My only concern would be if the Pacers voided the trade over this.

You're as knowledgeable as anyone when it comes to the cba, but are you sure a player can just retire and still collect their full contract salary? What would stop a player from signing their last big contract then retiring while never playing a game? I always thought that when a player retired he walked away from anything that was owed to him on his contract.
The cba should be there for the owners as well as the players. I can understand a medical retirement where the player could be paid by insurance, but getting to retire just because you don't want to play anymore and still draw a salary is simply wrong.

FireTheCoach
10-12-2008, 11:28 PM
I'm glad he didn't show up and hope he doesn't show up. This team has been through major surgery, through the IC ward and on the way to recovery. Eddie 's nothing more than a bandaid. He is not a part of our future and as such should not be a part of our present either.

And this is the first and last time I mention it, but that's the way I feel about Croshere, too.


Well said... I agree absolutely.

Especially about the Croshere situation. I am extrememly disapppointed seeing him once again wearing a Pacer jersey.

Smoothdave1
10-13-2008, 12:22 AM
If I'm not mistaken, a NBA team may terminate a contract with reasonable cause. However, if an NBA player retires, he does not get the remaining amount on his contract (unless it's a forced retirement due to injury.

For example, Reggie still had one year on his deal when he retired, which I don't believe he was paid for. At the same time, when Jay Williams (of Duke and Bulls fame) was in a motorcycle accident a few years ago, the Bulls could have terminated his deal (they opted to pay him anyway). That's why Golden State was able to suspend Ellis for 30 games for his moped accident as I believe there is a cause in all NBA contracts prohibiting certain activities.

Then you have a guy like Jayson Williams who broke his leg a few years ago and was forced to retire and collected the remaining amount on his huge NBA deal. The same thing applied with Bender when he retired and he was paid for the one or two years left on his deal.

duke dynamite
10-13-2008, 12:46 AM
Only tomorrow will tell what happens. I'm looking forward to seeing how this plays out.

count55
10-13-2008, 03:54 AM
If I'm not mistaken, a NBA team may terminate a contract with reasonable cause. However, if an NBA player retires, he does not get the remaining amount on his contract (unless it's a forced retirement due to injury.

For example, Reggie still had one year on his deal when he retired, which I don't believe he was paid for. At the same time, when Jay Williams (of Duke and Bulls fame) was in a motorcycle accident a few years ago, the Bulls could have terminated his deal (they opted to pay him anyway). That's why Golden State was able to suspend Ellis for 30 games for his moped accident as I believe there is a cause in all NBA contracts prohibiting certain activities.

Then you have a guy like Jayson Williams who broke his leg a few years ago and was forced to retire and collected the remaining amount on his huge NBA deal. The same thing applied with Bender when he retired and he was paid for the one or two years left on his deal.

Per Larry Coon:


Any money paid to a player is included in team salary, even if the player has retired. For example, James Worthy retired in 1994, two years before his contract ended. He continued to receive his salary for the 1994-95 and 1995-96 seasons, so his salary was included in the Lakers' team salary in those seasons. It is at the team's discretion (or as the result of an agreement between the team and player) whether to continue to pay the player after he has retired.

There is one exception whereby a player can continue to receive his salary, but the salary is not included in the team's team salary. This is when a player is forced to retire for medical reasons and a league-appointed physician confirms that he is medically unfit to continue playing. There is a waiting period of one year following the injury or illness before a team can apply for this salary cap relief. If the waiting period expires mid-season (on any date prior to the last day of the regular season), then the player's entire salary for that season is removed from the team's team salary. For example, in March 2003 the Knicks were allowed to remove Luc Longley's entire 2002-03 salary from their books (and since the luxury tax is based on the team salary as of the last day of the regular season, the Knicks avoided paying any tax on Longley's salary). This provision can also be used when a player dies while under contract.

Teams are not allowed to trade for disabled players and then apply for this salary cap relief. Only the team for which the player was playing when he was disabled may request this relief.

If a player retires, even for medical reasons, his team does not receive a salary cap exception to acquire a replacement player.

Reggie was paid the final year of his contract ($6mm) in 2005-2006.

It would appear from the bolded above that I was incorrect, and that the Pacers would have some leeway if Eddie Jones retired.

Justin Tyme
10-13-2008, 05:48 AM
My only concern would be if the Pacers voided the trade over this.

That is a major concern! I have to feel all parties involved were in agreement over the trade, or that the money Dallas was sending was to payoff Jones contract who didn't want to be a Pacer.

I like, others, have no problem with Jones not wanting to be a Pacer, I just don't wan't this trade to end up being voided over Jones not wanting to be a Pacer.

Robertmto
10-13-2008, 07:44 AM
Most of his contract is being payed for by the Mavs, waiving him wouldn't be a big deal at all. Chump change to the Simons

Major Cold
10-13-2008, 07:55 AM
Did he not sign the vet minimum? Would that not mean that the NBA is paying for his contract?

count55
10-13-2008, 09:24 AM
Did he not sign the vet minimum? Would that not mean that the NBA is paying for his contract?

No, his contract is well above the vet min of $1.261mm.

Plus the league only pays the difference between the two year vet min (about $0.796) and the vet min contract, so, for Austin, they'd pay about $0.465 of his min contract.

EDIT: To clarify, the NBA only pays a portion of a Vet Minimum contract for players with 3 or more years of experience. The purpose is to prevent older players from losing opportunities to younger players simply because of the minimum salary. It is only on Vet Min contracts that are signed for one year. The NBA will pay none of Eddie Jones' contract, but would pay a portion of Austin's, if he sticks.

Shade
10-13-2008, 11:07 AM
Good, this just makes it easier to cut him.

He has nothing left to offer this team (on the floor, at least), and we really don't need any players here that don't want to be here.

ABADays
10-13-2008, 01:18 PM
Per Larry Coon:



Reggie was paid the final year of his contract ($6mm) in 2005-2006.

It would appear from the bolded above that I was incorrect, and that the Pacers would have some leeway if Eddie Jones retired.

Reggie was paid the final year of his contract out of the goodness of the franchise heart - right?

I've probably heard the owner's being dumber on some aspects of the cba but to be forced to pay a player who refuses to report would be asinine.

OakMoses
10-13-2008, 01:36 PM
I think this is all just posturing by Larry & Co. to try and save a few bucks. Jones probably looked at the trade and thought "They'll just cut and then I can sign with someone else and make twice as much money this season." Larry & Co. might be thinking, "We'd like this guy to show up so we can see if he's got anything left, then we'll cut him." Since Eddie's not showing up, I can see Larry saying something like, "I'm not giving this guy a dime until he at least shows up."

Speed
10-13-2008, 01:41 PM
I think this is all just posturing by Larry & Co. to try and save a few bucks. Jones probably looked at the trade and thought "They'll just cut and then I can sign with someone else and make twice as much money this season." Larry & Co. might be thinking, "We'd like this guy to show up so we can see if he's got anything left, then we'll cut him." Since Eddie's not showing up, I can see Larry saying something like, "I'm not giving this guy a dime until he at least shows up."

I agree. Even to take it further, if he really doesn't want to play here, but somewhere else, then maybe he can buy him out for 1 million and save even more money.

pacergod2
10-13-2008, 02:10 PM
melli and speed. you guys are right on. they are just posturing to gain more leverage against somebody that REALLY doesn't want to be here. if he wants to be elsewhere so bad, maybe he will allow the Pacers to pay him less than the difference between his maximum BiAnnual Exception that he currently makes and what the veteran minimum would be for someone else to sign him. So his 1.976 million could be negotiated to 715K to buy him out. Then he can go sign a vets minimum for roughly 1.261M and he breaks even. We come out ahead with the 1.8M we got from Dallas. We in essence would be saving ourselves upwards of a million dollars by obtaining as much leverage as possible. That would be ideal.

I really like the teamwork of Morway and Bird.

Tom White
10-13-2008, 02:21 PM
Hell, come to think about it, Tinsley is getting paid to sit on his butt. There's no difference.

Sure there is a difference. The team told the player to stay home (in Tinsley's case), therefore the team is paying for their own decision.

aceace
10-13-2008, 02:24 PM
Maybe the Pacers are going to buy him out for part of his contract and then he can re-sign for the Vets minimum. Still make his 2M. I bet if he plays this year its for Dallas.

Young
10-13-2008, 06:53 PM
Good, this just makes it easier to cut him.

He has nothing left to offer this team (on the floor, at least), and we really don't need any players here that don't want to be here.

Agreed.

Sounds nice to have a mentor for Rush but not needed. We have enough good veterans to lead the way for this team.

To be honest I think I would rather have Croshere on this team than Jones. Simply because Croshere really wants to be here.

duke dynamite
10-13-2008, 07:40 PM
Well it looks like we have a spot for Austin available now that the Williams void needs to be filled...

idioteque
10-13-2008, 08:21 PM
That is a major concern! I have to feel all parties involved were in agreement over the trade, or that the money Dallas was sending was to payoff Jones contract who didn't want to be a Pacer.

I like, others, have no problem with Jones not wanting to be a Pacer, I just don't wan't this trade to end up being voided over Jones not wanting to be a Pacer.

The Pacers will not void this trade. This trade was not made to acquire Eddie Jones, this trade was made to get rid of Shawne Williams. We'll negotiate with him and accompany his wishes, doing whatever it takes just to ensure Shawne never has to come back here.

Personally I don't care if Eddie Jones ever plays a second for the Pacers. Honestly he is one of my favorite players of the late 90's and early 2000's but his ship has long since sailed.

Smoothdave1
10-13-2008, 09:04 PM
Thanks for the clarification. I was too tired and lazy last night to look up Larry Coon's CBA info.

The one issue I recall was that Reggie Miller was the Pacers' "Michael Finley" rule (cut player) where a team was able to cut a player a few years ago without the salary affecting the luxury tax, I think.

As mentioned, if Jones fails to report, I could see a buyout being reached. Jones could then sign with a team of his choosing for the minimum and have the NBA pick up part of the deal as well. Perhaps a team like Boston, LA, etc. may have an interest in Jones.

Naptown_Seth
10-13-2008, 11:13 PM
We'll waive him. We'll pay him. Just as initially reported.
My understanding was that a player retiring does not require that he be paid. For example it was the Simons' choice to pay Reggie his final year, they didn't have to.

count55
10-13-2008, 11:41 PM
My understanding was that a player retiring does not require that he be paid. For example it was the Simons' choice to pay Reggie his final year, they didn't have to.


Per Larry Coon:



Reggie was paid the final year of his contract ($6mm) in 2005-2006.

It would appear from the bolded above that I was incorrect, and that the Pacers would have some leeway if Eddie Jones retired.

Yeah, I had confused the statement in Larry Coon's FAQ that anything paid to a player after retirement stayed on the cap with the idea that retire players had to be paid. That, plus he'd used the James Worthy example, and we had paid Reggie after he had retired.

Pacers
10-14-2008, 06:24 AM
So is he going to not get paid or be bought out? It doesn't make sense to buy out a contract that you folks don't think needs to be paid.

I still stand by my thought that he has to be paid, unless he retires. A player holding out of training camp gets paid, so I don't see what the difference is here.

MillerTime
10-14-2008, 08:37 AM
Jones just might elect to retire, rather than play for a non-title contending team...



Following Sunday's practice at Conseco Fieldhouse, Pacers coach Jim O'Brien touched on the possibility that Jones could elect to retire rather than report to the Pacers.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081013/SPORTS04/810130358

Fool
10-14-2008, 09:17 AM
Maybe the Pacers are going to buy him out for part of his contract and then he can re-sign for the Vets minimum. Still make his 2M. I bet if he plays this year its for Dallas.

This is what I assumed would be the case when I read about the trade initially and is still what I believe will be the case. The NBA doesn't like the idea of teams trading for players just to make contracts work and so it used to get upset when a team would trade a player with the agreement that said player would be bought out and return to their original team. Dallas got in trouble with this last season with the Kidd trade when Stackhouse told the whole world that he knew he was returning to Dallas before the trade was even finalized. Thus, I'm reading all this as posturing to make it seem like there wasn't already a plan for Jones to return to Dallas.

Justin Tyme
10-14-2008, 11:22 AM
The best case would be that Jones doesn't want to play for a non-contenting team, Pacers, and he will just retire. If that happens, then the Pacers will have gotten 2-2nd picks and cash for Williams which. If this in return could be packaged with Tinsley in a trade, it would be great. To me this is the best case scenario at the present time. I'm just hoping Jones retires and the Pacers owe him nothing!

JayRedd
10-14-2008, 12:03 PM
This is what I assumed would be the case when I read about the trade initially and is still what I believe will be the case. The NBA doesn't like the idea of teams trading for players just to make contracts work and so it used to get upset when a team would trade a player with the agreement that said player would be bought out and return to their original team. Dallas got in trouble with this last season with the Kidd trade when Stackhouse told the whole world that he knew he was returning to Dallas before the trade was even finalized. Thus, I'm reading all this as posturing to make it seem like there wasn't already a plan for Jones to return to Dallas.

Could be.

If you bring him in to camp and then deem him "not good enough to make the team" then there is the illusion that you just made a speculative trade that, upon second thought, did not work out. This way, there is no specter of impropriety and no one in the League office will really care or give it a second look, especially since the Pacers did actually get some value in the deal in the form of two-second round picks and a few dollars.

Meanwhile, Eddie Jones, a 36-year-old consummate pro and three-time All Star, has no desire to participate in this horse-and-pony-show charade. And that is completely understandable.